Minutes from the April 6, 2006 and April 13, 2006 meetings were approved as
distributed.

III. General Education Structure Proposal
Discussion.

Chair’s Opening Remarks: Chair Wilson opened this discussion with a
summary of the recent history of the General Education Program. This
included pointing out that our general education program was one of the concerns
of the 1996 NCA report. Since that time the faculty senate has approved 5
year terms for members of the general education committee as well as approving a
half-time director position. In 2001, SEC charged the general education
committee to review and possibly update the goals of the program and to begin
the process of establishing a formal and broad assessment system to ensure the
objectives were met. Senate approved a final draft of general education
learning outcomes in September 2005. The general education committee began
assessment of the program during the 2002-2003 academic year, focusing on
assessment of written communication and the global perspective area. In
addition the committee has worked to establish a process to assess the proposed
student learning outcomes. Additionally, in response to faculty and
student concerns that the program lacked coherence, the committee began to
address the structure of the program and proposed including a first year
experience.

The general education committee unveiled the first draft of a new general
education structure based on work completed by a design team during the summer
2005. The committee hosted several listening sessions to solicit feedback
from the campus at large. The general education committee incorporated
suggested changes which resulted in the proposal being discussed at this
meeting.

Wilson emphasized that the goal of this meeting was to think and dialogue
about the proposal and that this issue will be addressed in the May 4, 2006
faculty senate meeting. Wilson stated that her goal was to allow all
perspectives to be shared and all people to feel heard and emphasized the need
for the dialogue to focus on student learning. She also urged senators to
remember that accountability in higher education is changing. Both
internal and external constituencies expect us to use the data to make
improvements. Whether we stay with our old general education program or
choose something new, we need to begin to build a culture that values a dynamic
curriculum – one that responds to identified gaps and weaknesses.

General Education Director’s Opening Remarks: Emily Johnson,
General Education Director, provided some opening remarks that highlighted the
recent changes to the general education structure presented to faculty senate on
April 6th as represented on the current structure document.
Johnson stated that of 21 peer institution general education programs she has
researched half required a FE, about half required a history while the other
half did not require a history but was an option, and about half required a
literature while the other half did not require a literature but was an option.
Furthermore, every single 1 required 2 science courses. Johnson also
stated that the learning outcomes were written to be cross-disciplinary.
It is up to departments who want to have courses in the program to determine
what outcomes that course addresses. Furthermore, citizenship, diversity
and global understanding are 3 main themes of the general education mission
statement.

Prepared Statements: Three faculty members then presented prepared
statements.

Chuck Lee, chair of the History Department, voiced
the question if this proposal is an improvement over our current program.
He stated that we lack a full report on what is wrong and what needs to be
fixed. His other main points were that he favors a second science
requirement, is concerned that the proposed structure cuts content in favor of
poorly defined university experiences (not in favor of this), had no concern
with the overall credit reduction, and believed that the proposal is not ready
for action with too many undefined elements.

Betsy Morgan, UWL 100 professor, voiced her
experience with teaching UWL 100. She stated that this course has
transformed her in teaching of freshmen and stated how beneficial she has seen
the course be for students. She shared a student response to “what it
means to be an educated person”, an assignment in UWL 100. Morgan also
further stated that the tiered structure of the proposal is good in that faculty
will know that students coming to them in their junior and senior years will
have had certain experiences. She also expressed that there are currently
national efforts, such as in the Carnegie Foundation, to help students become
engaged citizens (citizenship category).

Sharon Jessee, English Dept and Women’s, Gender
and Sexuality Department, stated that she believed there are three significant
problems with the proposal: diversity, civic engagement, and disciplinary.
Point 1 interdisciplinary experiences: When done well can be very
effective but when not done well can be very superficial. To do well the
university would have to provide a substantial funding for interdisciplinary
experience development. Point 2 diversity: In relation to Plan 2008 and
what needs to be done with diversity cannot be accomplished with 1 diversity
course. Point 3 civic engagement: The civic engagement course requirement
would be able to meet one of the SLOs, but not the other SLOS within that
category. Furthermore, where civic engagement occurs currently on campus
needs to be identified before changing it.

Open Comments/Questions:

Questions: A summary of the main questions regarding the proposed structure
were as follows:

How much communication has occurred with students regarding this
structure? Johnson responded that the general education student member has
brought this to the student associate in which students then supplied their
input.

Why is the FE being course-embedded the main model being brought
forth. This is similar to the UW-Eau Claire model and also was also due to
resources.

What are the criteria that would be used to approve courses in these
categories?

How do the approved student learning outcomes correlate with this
structure? How would it be assured that students get courses that deal with
all the student learning outcomes?

Positive Comments: A summary of the main positive comments of the
proposed structure were as follows:

The addition of the FE component needed to address the NSSE data on
student-faculty interaction.

Incorporation of requiring student experiences into the program needed
for students to start the process of developing interests, views, etc…

The concept of civic engagement is paramount to who we are.

Contains depth and breath and some experiential learning.

A variety of history options would be good for students

Tiered system of the program was deemed favorable.

Proposal Concerns: A summary of the main concerns expressed of the
proposed structure were as follows:

Lack of a minimum of two science course requirement since national
evidence has shown our society to be science illiterate and the increased
need for science knowledge in our daily lives.

Need for more emphasis on a second language for all students.

Resource (both financial and staff) questions have not been addressed
in this proposal.

Weakness of liberal arts in this structure.

Outcomes may not be met if not well defined what categories fit what
outcomes.

Need for not any course being included in a category, but the need for
students taking courses where the expert of that discipline is teaching that
course.

Importance of maintaining content in the program.

Lack of defining what FE, civic engagement etc… would involve. Lack of
key criteria for these components.

Lack of criteria for courses to be included in the various categories.

Concluding Remarks: Wilson urged senators to think about the
comments that have been made and to ask for further clarification if needed.
SEC will discuss how to bring this proposal forward and in what form it will be
voted on. Senators are encouraged to communicate to SEC regarding this
issue.